linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: dt: add header to define tegra20 clocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5123B7C4.9030002@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:35:00 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
CC:	Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@...dia.com>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: dt: add header to define tegra20 clocks

On 02/18/2013 10:31 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:54:28AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/13/2013 11:38 PM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
>>> To replace magic number in "clocks = <&tegra_car 28>;"
>>
>> I like the concept here; I was thinking about doing this today, but you
>> beat me to it:-) Feel free to create the Tegra30 header too, and modify
>> all the *.dts* files.
>>
>> To address other comments in this thread: Yes, I think that we will want
>> to modify the clock driver to include this header to avoid
>> duplication/errors (that will require adjusting Linux's include path),
>> and also remove the list of IDs from the binding document; it can just
>> refer the the new header by name and cause the header to *be* part of
>> the binding document.
> 
> I like it, since doing so will help us hijack kernel to have dts stay
> in the tree rather than going to a separate repository :)

Well, at least the header files would need to stay in the kernel. The
.txt binding documentation wouldn't have to though.

I guess this is a good argument for not putting these header files into
Documentation/devicetree/bindings, and adding that to the include path,
but rather putting the headers somewhere else.

> Seriously, is maintaining dts in a separate repository still a plan?
> If yes, we will have duplication problem someday anyway.
> 
> For reason of it, I vote for having dts stay in the kernel tree.
> 
> Shawn
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/